Comparative effect of selected anti-mildew agents on bamboo bundles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nutrient-rich raw bamboo materials can be infected by mildew when exposed to water or high humid environments. This not only affects the appearance of bamboo products, but it also contributes to respiratory diseases. Herein, four anti-mildew agents, i.e., boric acid, copper sulphate, alumina phosphate sol, and alumina silicate sol, were used to evaluate their anti-mildew performances. The results showed that the adequate anti-mold concentrations of boron and copper were 2% and 0.7%, respectively. The optimum mass ratio of aluminum phosphate sol and silicone aluminum sol were 1 to 1 (2% phosphoric acid addition) and 10 to 1 (aluminum salt addition was 1.5%). There were significant differences in the prevention and treatment effects of different mold inhibitors on mold and discoloration bacteria. The efficacies order of the anti-mildew property was as follows: copper sulphate > alumina silicate sol > boric acid > alumina phosphate sol. In addition, the order for stain fungi resistance was: boric acid > alumina phosphate sol > alumina silicate sol > copper sulphate. The selected anti-mildew agents showed promising application requirements as an active ingredient in bamboo preservative systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".